Wednesday, October 13, 2004

October 13, 2004

Editor
Daily Cal
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Dear Editor:

Since April of this year I've been tracking on my blog, mpetrelis.blogspot.com, political donations from journalists and media personalities to candidates running for president and the Democratic and Republican parties, so I am quite familiar with who's funding this year's national races.

Thanks to Google's search engine, I came across your October 8 story on the web about contributions from UC employees and professors in this year's race for the White House.

The article reported one UC Berkeley professor, Mr. Donald A. Glaser, coughed up $25,000 for the Democratic National Committee, but he's not the only campus professor to give so much to the Democrats.

Federal Election Commission files reveal professor Edward E. Penhoet, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, also gave $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Penhoet made his hefty contribution on July 28.

If professors can make such hefty gifts to major political parties, it may be because they are very well compensated by the University of California, and have vast sums of cash to throw into the political arena. Or perhaps the professors possess family money or have made wise investments, allowing them to participate in the political process at a level many Americans can only dream about.

In any case, I hope the Daily Cal will investigate further and report on other large contributions from UC Berkeley professors.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The Bush campaign's vilification of supposed flip-flops by Kerry is like the kettle calling the post black, when the issue of importing lower-priced drugs from Canada is broached.

Comparing what Bush said four years ago in his third debate with Al Gore about the issue with his comments during his second debate with Kerry last Friday, the record, in my opinion, is abundantly clear -- Bush engaged in flip-flopping.

Four years ago, Bush said nothing about the safety of drugs imported from other countries, but, now he's expressing concerns the drugs from Canada or "a third world [sic]" might not be
safe.

If the drugs taken by Canadians or people in the third world were unsafe and harming or killing citizens abroad, I think the press would have reported on this. Seems to me Bush and his handlers have more explaining to do about the president's nuanced changed position on imported drugs.

Below are excerpted transcripts from the respective debates, showing Kerry was correct in Friday's debate in pointing out Bush's position has changed.
^^^

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html

October 17, 2000

The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

[snip]
MODERATOR: All right. Another -- the next question also on health issue is from -- it will be asked by Marie Payne Kloep, and it goes to Governor Bush.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Are either of you concerned with -- are either of you concerned with finding some feasible way to lower the price of pharmaceutical drugs such as education on minimizing intake, revamp of the FDA process or streamlining the drug companies' procedures instead of just finding more money to pay for them?

BUSH: Well, that's a great question. I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there is no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. And therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs they do so on their own, there's no kind of collective bargaining, no power of purchasing among seniors. So I think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have precipitation drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all. The problem we have today is like the patient's bill of rights, particularly with health care, there's a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C. It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue. So what I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to forget all the arguing and finger pointing, and come together and take care of our seniors' prescription drug program, that says we'll pay for the poor seniors, we'll help all seniors with prescription drugs. In the meantime, I think it's important to have what's called Immediate Helping Hand, which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors, don't have to choose between food and medicine. That's part of an overall overhaul. The purchasing powers. And I'm against price controls. I think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it. One of the most important things is to continue the research and development component. And so I'm against price controls. Expediting drugs through the FDA makes sense, of course. Allowing the new bill that was passed in the Congress made sense to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back and other countries to come back into the United States. That makes sense. But the best thing to do is to reform Medicare.
[snip]

- - -

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

October 8, 2004

The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

[snip]
GIBSON: Mr. President, we're going to turn to questions now on domestic policy. And we're going to start with health issues.

And the first question is for President Bush and it's from John Horstman.

HORSTMAN: Mr. President, why did you block the reimportation of safer and inexpensive drugs from Canada which would have cut 40 to 60 percent off of the cost?

BUSH: I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.

And that's why the FDA and that's why the surgeon general are looking very carefully to make sure it can be done in a safe way. I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you.

And what my worry is is that, you know, it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world.

And we've just got to make sure, before somebody thinks they're buying a product, that it works. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.

Now, it may very well be here in December you'll hear me say, I think there's a safe way to do it.

There are other ways to make sure drugs are cheaper. One is to speed up generic drugs to the marketplace, quicker. Pharmaceuticals were using loopholes to keep brand -- brand drugs in place, and generics are much less expensive than brand drugs. And we're doing just that.

Another is to pass -- to get our seniors to sign up to these drug discount cards, and they're working.

Wanda Blackmore I met here from Missouri, the first time she bought drugs with her drug discount card, she paid $1.14, I think it was, for about $10 worth of drugs.

These cards make sense.

And, you know, in 2006 seniors are going to get prescription drug coverage for the first time in Medicare. Because I went to Washington to fix problems.

Medicare -- the issue of Medicare used to be called "Mediscare." People didn't want to touch it for fear of getting hurt politically.

I wanted to get something done. I think our seniors deserve a modern medical system. And in 2006, our seniors will get prescription drug coverage.

Thank you for asking.

GIBSON: Senator, a minute and a half.

KERRY: John, you heard the president just say that he thought he might try to be for it.

Four years ago, right here in this forum, he was asked the same question: Can't people be able to import drugs from Canada? You know what he said? "I think that makes sense. I think that's a good idea" -- four years ago.

Now, the president said, "I'm not blocking that." Ladies and gentlemen, the president just didn't level with you right now again.

He did block it, because we passed it in the United States Senate. We sent it over to the House, that you could import drugs. We took care of the safety issues.

We're not talking about third-world drugs. We're talking about drugs made right here in the United States of America that have American brand names on them and American bottles. And we're asking to be able to allow you to get them.

The president blocked it. The president also took Medicare, which belongs to you. And he could have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and lowered the costs to seniors.

You know what he did? He made it illegal, illegal for Medicare to do what the V.A. does, which is bulk purchase drugs so that you can lower the price and get them out to you lower.

He put $139 billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug companies right out of your pockets. That's the difference between us. The president sides with the power companies, the oil companies, the drug companies. And I'm fighting to let you get those drugs from Canada, and I'm fighting to let Medicare survive.

I'm fighting for the middle class. That is the difference.

BUSH: If they're safe, they're coming. I want to remind you that it wasn't just my administration that made the decision on safety. President Clinton did the same thing, because we have an obligation to protect you.

Now, he talks about Medicare. He's been in the United States Senate 20 years. Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished.

I've been in Washington, D.C., three and a half years and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health care system. That's what leadership is all about.

KERRY: Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it.

We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time.

And it's the president's fiscal policies that have driven up the biggest deficits in American history. He's added more debt to the debt of the United States in four years than all the way from George Washington to Ronald Reagan put together. Go figure.
[snip]

Thursday, October 07, 2004

The chief executive officer of the Time Warner media empire, Mr. Richard D. Parsons, in 2003 donated the maximum allowed by law for a primary election, $2,000, to the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign, according to records from the Federal Election Commission.

Parsons is not the only Time Warner executive who gave to Bush and Cheney's primary race last year. At least nine other high-level people from the conglomerate contributed $2,000 to Bush/Cheney last year.

Time Warner's political action committee also tilts toward the GOP, judging by the PAC's records. During the current election cycle, the Time Warner PAC doled out $53,000 to GOP committees; while $35,000 went to Democratic election committees.

Donations to congressional candidates from Time Warner's PAC for the same election cycle are similarly biased. Republican Senate and House candidates took in $200,229, and $123,245 to Democratic candidates.

Since the donations come from Time Warner executives and their PAC, I don't believe the giving in any way compromises the political reporting of the corporations media outlets, such as Time magazine and CNN.

However, the contributions reveal something about the political leanings of the top people running Time Warner, which should be disclosed on Time Warner's web site.

Below are listings of donations by the executives and the PAC. All information comes from www.tray.com.
^^^

The Associated Press put out a story yesterday about a small drop of syphilis cases in the Palm Springs area, which is in Riverside County.

Year-to-date syphilis cases for that California county dropped from 78 last year to 73 in 2004, a modest decline, but one worthy of an AP wire story.

Similar good news about syphilis dropping in San Francisco is contained in the latest monthly STD report from the local department of public health.

Through the end of August 2003, San Francisco recorded 465 syphilis cases, while 450 cases have been reported for the same period in 2004.

By my estimation, this is a 3.3 percent decline, yet it hasn't been noted in any media reports thus far.

Falling syphilis rates in two California counties, both with high concentrations of gay male residents, should be reported on, if only to keep the public informed about syphilis rates and to encourage the safe-sex practices contributing to the declines.

For a copy of the latest monthly STD report for San Francisco, go to http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/STD/STDMONTH.pdf.
^^^

Monday, October 04, 2004

I've been tuning in Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart because it's funny, satirizes politicians of all parties, and has tremendous influence over younger voters, many of whom are either slackers or stoners, maybe both.

While Stewart has steadfastly refused to say whether he or his show lean favorably toward Democrats or Republicans, public records from the Federal Election Commission available on the tray.com site reveal a different story.

Three writers for the Daily Show have donated a total of $1,500 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, and other contributions have been made to Howard Dean's campaign and a Democratic PAC.

I believe these donations show a Democratic tilt on the part of individual writers, even though the Daily Show poke fun equally at Democrats and the GOP.

The Daily Show's viewers may not give a hoot about these donations, but it behooves Stewart and his producers to disclose the donations to the audience.

Let's hope that between now and election day that Stewart informs his audience about his writers donating to Kerry.
^^^

Javerbaum, David
6/30/2004 $750.00
New York, NY 10011
Daily Show with Jon Stewart/head wr -[Contribution]
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC

I've been tuning in Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart because it's funny, satirizes politicians of all parties, and has tremendous influence over younger voters, many of whom are either slackers or stoners, maybe both.

While Stewart has steadfastly refused to say whether he or his show lean favorably toward Democrats or Republicans, public records from the Federal Election Commission available on the tray.com site reveal a different story.

Three writers for the Daily Show have donated a total of $1,500 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, and other contributions have been made to Howard Dean's campaign and a Democratic PAC.

I believe these donations show a Democratic tilt on the part of individual writers, even though the Daily Show poke fun equally at Democrats and the GOP.

The Daily Show's viewers may not give a hoot about these donations, but it behooves Stewart and his producers to disclose the donations to the audience.

Let's hope that between now and election day that Stewart informs his audience about his writers donating to Kerry.
^^^

Javerbaum, David
6/30/2004 $750.00
New York, NY 10011
Daily Show with Jon Stewart/head wr -[Contribution]
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC